Not exact matches
«Typically we think of
land as a
net «
sink» of
carbon dioxide.
sources of
carbon:
land 120 Gt ocean 90 Gt human 7 Gt
sinks for
carbon:
land 122 Gt ocean 92 Gt human 0 Gt
net change: 3 Gt source And it's all human!
We find that without dramatic increases in the area of forests, without substantially positive changes in
land - use practices, without large
net positive effects of CO2 or climate change in the future, or without some other new significant
carbon storage mechanism, the U.S.
carbon sink itself will decrease substantially over the 21st century.
Carbon and Other Biochemical Cycles: On the headline statement in this section, Brazil insisted on nuancing the relative contribution of
land - use change to the increase of CO2 concentrations, and including reference to the role of forests as
sinks, with Venezuela proposing to refer to the
net balance between emissions and
carbon capture by
land systems.
If we reforested our
lands and increased the capacity of our
carbon sinks in other ways, it would help reduce our
net carbon emissions.
In this graph, positive values mean that the
land is a
net carbon sink (absorbing CO2), while negative values mean it is a
net carbon source (releasing CO2).
Way to go Frank; not only are we a
net carbon sink; but we are the ONLY sizeable
land mass that is a
net carbon sink; the rest are either
carbon sources or about neutral; and yes with 5 % oft he world population we consume 25 % of the world oil; we also make about 25 % of the world's goods and services; Maybe we need to be using more of the world's oil.
As a result of the thawing permafrost, the
land switched from a
carbon sink (
net CO2 absorber) to a
carbon source (
net CO2 emitter) decades earlier than it would have otherwise — before 2100 for every DEP.
And they found that while
land - based living things are still pulling in more
carbon dioxide each year than they themselves are giving off — rendering the biosphere a
carbon dioxide «
sink» — they are a
net source of both methane and nitrous oxide.